French military base opened in UAE with 500 troops

[brilTek]

First French foreign military base in 50 years opens in the UAE


French president Nicolas Sarkozy opened a French military base in the United Arab Emirates today. It is the first permanent French base in the Gulf region as well as the first French overseas military base in 50 years.

Called “Peace camp", the base on the banks of the Strait of Hormuz accommodates 500 troops. It contains a navy and air force base and a training camp.






President Sarkozy had already announced that France wanted to play an important role in the stability of the region.

The base could be used as a show of strength in UAE’s dispute with Iran over a group of islands in the region.

Rear Adml Ahmed al Tunaiji, chief of the UAE’s Naval Forces, said on the sidelines of a conference held before the base opening that the base could not be defined in traditional terms comparable to the US military bases in Qatar and Bahrain. Instead, he said, it was more of a “camp”. “This is not a base as we know it, it is more of a residence where crews can come here to rest,” he is reported to have told journalists.

Admiral Pierre François Forissier, head of the French Navy, outlined details of the base at the conference The base – named “Peace Camp” – will see French military personnel and hardware stationed permanently at Mina Zayed port and Al Dhafra Air Base.

Later, in an interview with an Abu Dhabi based newspaper, The National, Admiral Forissier said the naval part of the base would include nearly 80 non-combatants. “The administration of the Indian Ocean fleet will be based here. It’s only administrative,” he was quoted as saying.

He emphasized that the base is not an operational base, “it’s not a base to practise military activities, it’s just to support our permanent deployment in the area to secure our lines of communication”.

Admiral Forissier said that the army and air force division of the base would be used for training to fight in a desert environment. He said Mr Sarkozy had instructed that about six Rafale fighter jets should be stationed at the base, as that would make their deployment easier than having to bring them from France.

There is a possibility that the base could be used as a launching pad in France’s anti-piracy efforts.

The French have been one of the most active navies in the multi-national effort to curb pricy around the horn of Africa area. “Today it’s not possible because we’re just at the beginning and yet we’re developing good practices and rules to work against pirates.”, the admiral added.

[brilTek]

Charles de Gaulle (R91) -- the only serving French aircraft carrier




Charles de Gaulle (R91) is the only serving French aircraft carrier and is the flagship of the French Navy (Marine Nationale). She is the tenth French aircraft carrier, the first French nuclear-powered surface vessel, and the first and only nuclear-powered carrier built outside of the United States Navy. She is named after French statesman and general Charles de Gaulle.

The ship carries a complement of Dassault Rafale M and E-2C Hawkeye aircraft, as well as modern electronics and Aster missiles. She is the second largest European carrier, after the Admiral Kuznetsov.


Rafale number 9 on the flight deck of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.





Dauphin rescue helicopter on the deck of the Charles de Gaulle carrier




a Hawkeye sentry plane on the flying deck of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier




The 16 Aster vertical missile launchers of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier

[brilTek]

^^ So guys, France is trying to flex its muscles again. what do you think motive behind this move?

Or is it to threaten Iran ??

[Patriot]

French does not have any real enemy..so not sure why wasting money on this.

[Imran2006g]

They just want to intimidate iran; trying to corner them from everyside...

[brilTek]

Some More Images

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Emirati Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Sheikh Saif bin Zayed al-Nahayan inaugurate France's first military base in the Gulf on May 26, 2009 in the United Arab Emirates' capital Abu Dhabi.




United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan, second left, United Arab Emirates' Crown Prince Sheik Mohamed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, back, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, front, are seen on the tarmac at the al Dhafra Air Base in Abu Dhabi at a show of four twin-engined Rafale fighter jets manufactured by France's Dassault Aviation in Abu Dhabi

[Ratus Ratus]

Originally Posted by brilTek

^^ So guys, France is trying to flex its muscles again. what do you think motive behind this move?

Or is it to threaten Iran ??

Actually to most of you: If the word conspiracy was removed from all dictionaries you would be stuck.

Why does there have to be more of a motive beyond what has been stated?
Remember France does have naval vessels in the anti piracy task force and so this would provide a closer port for rest and admin than going all the way back to france.
There was a hint of 'help' for the UAE re Iran but this is more show than anything else.
France does have forces in Afghanistan as well.

[brilTek]

Originally Posted by Ratus Ratus

Actually to most of you: If the word conspiracy was removed from all dictionaries you would be stuck.

Why does there have to be more of a motive beyond what has been stated?
Remember France does have naval vessels in the anti piracy task force and so this would provide a closer port for rest and admin than going all the way back to france.
There was a hint of 'help' for the UAE re Iran but this is more show than anything else.
France does have forces in Afghanistan as well.

With respect, you seriously believe in that’s for piracy

Djibouti is France's largest foreign military base. Somalia’s coast is near to it as compared to far UAE. Djibouti is a perfect place for naval base if slightest to do with piracy. Djibouti is ideal place near to canal Suez from which a major chunk of OPEC oil supplies pass through. "Naval vessels" don't have an issue of going back all the way to France, for that purpose France already moved in Djibouti.

It is more to do with IRAN to ensure straits of Hormuz remain cleared. And I'm certain you know this too. It is quite opposite to what they said, to show for piracy but to stop Iran from possible blockade of Hormuz.

P.S. The world would be at PEACE if "lust for oil" removed from west's dictonairy. and its on a serious note.

[S-2]

"P.S. The world would be at PEACE if "lust for oil" removed from west's dictonairy. and its on a serious note."

West's "dictonairy[sic]", eh? Maybe you can explain these pictures below?

Nobody has a lust for oil like the PRC and India. They've waaaay too little of their own and need waaaaay too much from others in order to continue growing.

Black or blue gold remain the basis by which the global economy is fueled. It must be secured in such a way that those fuels reach open markets, are priced accordingly, and made available on such a basis to the global marketplace.

Free and unfettered access to market-priced energy allows each nation to exploit it's comparative advantages in the open global marketplace. This is how Benin can expect to survive and (potentially) thrive with America or Japan.

Denied such because of great power competition to assure stable supplies for internal consumption, this marketplace will collapse into energy fiefdoms-the margins of which will be competitive in ways not exercised by diplomacy but, instead, war.

It will be the small nations whom lose the most without these current protections afforded by others.

Does anybody project using LESS energy in the coming years? Without equal access by all who can bear market prices, our global trading system will collapse and war of a magnitude yet unimagined will come sure as the sun rises in the east.

[brilTek]

Originally Posted by S-2

"P.S. The world would be at PEACE if "lust for oil" removed from west's dictonairy. and its on a serious note."

West's "dictonairy[sic]", eh? Maybe you can explain these pictures here?

Nobody has a lust for oil like the PRC and India. They've waaaay too little of their own and need waaaaay too much from others in order to continue growing.

Black or blue gold remain the basis by which the global economy is fueled. It must be secured in such a way that those fuels reach open markets, are priced accordingly, and made available on such a basis to the global marketplace.

Free and unfettered access to market-priced energy allows each nation to exploit it's comparative advantages in the open global marketplace. This is how Benin can expect to survive and (potentially) thrive with America or Japan.

Denied such because of great power competition to assure stable supplies for internal consumption, this marketplace will collapse into energy fiefdoms-the margins of which will be competitive in ways not exercised by diplomacy but, instead, war.

It will be the small nations whom lose the most without these current protections afforded by others.

Does anybody project using LESS energy in the coming years? Without equal access by all who can bear market prices, our global trading system will collapse and war of a magnitude yet unimagined will come sure as the sun rises in the east.

I'm not able see the pics but get your point. China is next super-power so following its predecessor steps to "ensure oil supplies".

So the war on Iraq was invaded to just ensure oil supplies. Why on first place UNO (or call it USA-NATO Organization) imposed sanctions on it and denied massive oil production?

Who gives the right to west to ensure "Free Oil Market"? USA & WEST have monopoly on number of items. They sell it on price what they like. Why can't oil producing countries have the right to start/stop/increase/decrease productions? If Saudi Arabia wants to stop its oil production (for any reason), who gives the right to west to ensure they won't disrupt?

It’s the west that will suffer badly than smaller ones. As you have just witnessed west & USA crumbles after mere price hike of oil.

P.S. Thanks for the correction and for attention. That’s happened in hurry sometimes. I found a big one in your post too.

"Free and unfettered access to market-priced energy allows each nation to exploit it's comparative advantages in the open global marketplace."

It should be "its (as possessive)" instead of it's. My teacher always told me that grammatical errors are major offence.

I really respect military men. Take it as a joke

[S-2]

"I really respect military men."

I really respect accuracy and clear writing. Thanks. I have no such excuse as I wasn't in a hurry.

"China is next super-power so following its predecessor steps to "ensure oil supplies".

That is Iraqi oil that China is developing. That oil will be sold on the open market. The PRC's fees come in the development that's shared with Iraq.

As for America, nobody has yet accused us of stealing a barrel.

"So the war on Iraq was invaded to just ensure oil supplies."

In part. Even there, though, the "oil supplies" extend beyond Iraq's borders and are defined by the existential and proven threat manifested by Iraq's two invasions of oil producing nations- Iran and Kuwait.

"Who gives the right to west to ensure "Free Oil Market"?

Who else has the means and determination to do so? "Means" is clear. The sole purpose of the U.S. Navy is to secure our sealanes globally. "Determination" is more clear. It is in the vested interest of the United States to promote the economic health of any nation with the potential to be a net contributor to this global marketplace.

Each plays its role in contributing goods and services. Our self-interest lies in the extension of this system. Clearly no nation is better positioned by virtue of access to two oceans as ours nor has any benefited so greatly.

A cursory review of America's energy use would indicate we receive only modest amounts from this region. That's not likely to change in the near term. Others upon whom we rely as key trading partners are not so fortunate to have ready supplies near. Japan, S. Korea, and others in Europe come to mind along with all those small nations that you rather derisively dismiss.

In a world of energy competition America will likely be better off than most. We have untapped resources and latent, unexploited technology potential beyond the reach of others less fortunate. However, without their ability to purchase our goods and services from the capital they raise by selling THEIR goods and services, this system will collapse.

Most vulnerable, actually, may be China. With the vast majority of their nouveau wealth concentrated within a very tiny percentage of their massive population, China has no internal market to service their productivity. They must sell globally to stay alive. Thus others globally must BUY from them.

We've more resilience than you surmise. Others don't. We've no interest in mideast energy other than to assure that it reaches open markets with as little friction as possible for the enrichment of all but, ultimately as the greatest benefactors, ourselves.

Therein lies our profit motive.

"Why can't oil producing countries have the right to start/stop/increase/decrease productions? If Saudi Arabia wants to stop its oil production (for any reason), who gives the right to west to ensure they won't disrupt?"

Umm...you've heard of oil embargos? They've occurred. Couldn't do a thing about it. Why did they stop? As western markets collapse, so too Saudi investments overseas. Does Saudi Arabia have a diversified portfolio of produced goods to sustain itself. Does it have a marketplace large enough to justify such.

We are economically intertwined globally with one another and NOTHING puts a brake on irredentist adventurism quite like threats to that global trading system.

[brilTek]

S-2:

sir, now in a hurry. I will reply tomorrow otherwise you'll catch my spellings